so they said, yet as far as i can see they are gonna accept a TPP with it .. latest situation re ISDS and TPP? .. don't know, yet, but here's one for tomorrow
Breakfast panel with TPP negotiators on 7 January 2016: Investor-state dispute settlement under the trans-pacific partnership
Join us for a panel discussion on the dispute resolution system in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), presented by experts in international arbitration, as well as members of TPP government negotiating teams from Peru and Mexico. They will discuss the controversies arising out of the TPP's adoption of investor state arbitration.
heh, betcha it's a breakfast no gutsy feeder would like to miss, though it probably wouldn't crowd out many construction camp spreads.
so again, the latest? .. not sure if there's more about now .. one thing for sure, i think many government figures are looking for feathers for caps while others may like to stick them somewhere else .. can only hope that the Australian government after having said they weren't keen on the ISDS idea that they have eliminated in fine print the worst it could bring
CANBERRA – Trade Minister Andrew Robb has defended the 12 nation Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement as a “trade pact, not a climate pact” in the face of renewed global concern about the landmark agreement.
Robb said Friday the text of the comprehensive agreement is out in “record time” and insists Australia will sign it.
The TPP represents about 40 percent of GDP and is designed to limit 98 percent of tariffs between the 12 nations including the United States, Japan and Chile, but analysts and activists say they see evidence of “green-washing” in the Environment Chapter.
“The agreement has poor coverage of environmental issues, and weak enforcement mechanisms,” said intellectual property expert, Dr Matthew Rimmer.
“There is only limited coverage of biodiversity, conservation, marine capture fisheries, and trade in environmental services.
He’s concerned that climate change is not mentioned at all in the heretofore secret document.
“‘Climate Change’ is like Voldemort from the Harry Potter series -- an evil, which must not be named. Instead, there is some weak language on the transition to a low emissions economy,” the QUT professor said.
The Trade Minister stands by the agreement, “This is not a climate change policy, “he told ABC radio.
“It is not an agreement to do with climate change. It is a trade agreement.”
The Trade Minister questions whether critics have read the entire document.
“I am a bit disappointed that 6000 pages hit last night at six o’clock, or whatever, and literally within 20 minutes people, predictable people, ringing media outlets around the country giving so-called expert advice with no opportunity to study the document,” he said.
“We have been successful in leading the charge in getting significant carve outs which preclude public policy in environmental areas from being subject to litigation.”
Dr Rimmer regards the Competition Chapter as having weak recognition of competition policy and consumer rights and he has concerns about the Intellectual Property Chapter, relating to the disclosure of trade secrets, computer crimes, and espionage.
“Such provisions could have a significant impact upon journalists, whistle-blowers, and civil society,” he said.
The controversial ability for multi-national companies to use the TPP provisions to sue countries, like Australia, through the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause remains.
Australia secured an amendment in the General Exceptions Chapter to stop tobacco companies from suing over issues, like plain packaging laws, but Dr Rimmer insists it may still be possible.
“This is not a complete carve-out for tobacco control measures,” he said.
“The agreement does not necessarily provide protection for tobacco control measures from attack under other regimes.”
Robb believes the agreement, also with Vietnam, Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru and Singapore, is a transformational agreement from which all Australians will benefit.
“This has been negotiated over many, many years. We were aware from day one the major areas of sensitivity,” he said.
“I am very confident we have addressed those.”
The TPP still has to be ratified by all 12 nations, including the U.S. which has a presidential election coming up.
The full text will be tabled in Parliament for 20 sitting days, with the joint standing committee on treaties set to conduct an inquiry into the trade pact.
It is expected the agreement will be ratified by all participant nations by the middle of 2016.
Keystone's move is just a warn-up to passing the TPP Agreement...If anything, the TPP gives more power to corporations to sue for the loss of future earnings for loss of projected earnings for things like limitations imposed for environmental concerns.
Paul krugman October 6, 2015 1:35 pm October 6, 2015 1:35 pm
I’ve described myself as a lukewarm opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; although I don’t share the intense dislike of many progressives, I’ve seen it as an agreement not really so much about trade as about strengthening intellectual property monopolies and corporate clout in dispute settlement — both arguably bad things, not good, even from an efficiency standpoint. But the WH is telling me that the agreement just reached is significantly different from what we were hearing before, and the angry reaction of industry and Republicans seems to confirm that.
What I know so far: pharma is mad because the extension of property rights in biologics is much shorter than it wanted, tobacco is mad because it has been carved out of the dispute settlement deal, and Rs in general are mad because the labor protection stuff is stronger than expected. All of these are good things from my point of view. I’ll need to do much more homework once the details are clearer.
But it’s interesting that what we’re seeing so far is a harsh backlash from the right against these improvements. I find myself thinking of Grossman and Helpman’s work on the political economy of free trade agreements .. http://www.nber.org/papers/w4597 , in which they conclude, based on a highly stylized but nonetheless interesting model of special interest politics, that
indent -- An FTA is most likely to politically viable exactly when it would be socially harmful. --
The TPP looks better than it did, which infuriates much of Congress.
.. there is no doubt globalization would have caused the loss of manufacturing jobs in higher-wage more developed countries without any trade pacts at all .. that's flogging fact which some opponents of all trade pacts chose to ignore .. also, there is no law that says trade agreements cannot get fairer and better for more through lessons learned from the past .. that said there are specifics as ISDS which are of major concern .. anyway, Krugman is a good guy on the side of the most, so it was good to snag that one .. another fair guy with what feels a somewhat different view on the TPP ..
In 2016, let's hope for better trade agreements - and the death of TPP
Joseph Stiglitz
The Trans-Pacific Partnership may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades
Japanese protesters oppose Trans-Pacific Partnership trade talks. Obama has sought to perpetuate business as usual, whereby the rules governing global trade and investment are written by US corporations for US corporations. Photograph: Steve Eberhardt/Demotix/Corbis
Sunday 10 January 2016 07.36 EST Last modified on Sunday 10 January 2016 07.38 EST
Last year was a memorable one for the global economy. Not only was overall performance disappointing, but profound changes – both for better and for worse – occurred in the global economic system.
Most notable was the Paris climate agreement reached last month .. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/dec/15/climate-change-deal-five-reasons-glad-five-reasons-gloomy . By itself, the agreement is far from enough to limit the increase in global warming to the target of 2ºC above the pre-industrial level. But it did put everyone on notice: the world is moving, inexorably, toward a green economy. One day not too far off, fossil fuels will be largely a thing of the past. So anyone who invests in coal now does so at his or her peril. With more green investments coming to the fore, those financing them will, we should hope, counterbalance powerful lobbying by the coal industry, which is willing to put the world at risk to advance its shortsighted interests.
Indeed, the move away from a high-carbon economy, where coal, gas, and oil interests often dominate, is just one of several major changes in the global geo-economic order. Many others are inevitable, given China’s soaring share of global output and demand. The New Development Bank, established by the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China .. http://www.theguardian.com/world/china , and South Africa), was launched during the year, becoming the first major international financial institution led by emerging countries. And, despite Barack Obama’s resistance, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established as well, and is to start operation this month.
The US did act with greater wisdom where China’s currency was concerned. It did not obstruct the renminbi’s admission to the basket of currencies that constitute the International Monetary Fund’s reserve asset, Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). In addition, a half-decade after the Obama administration agreed to modest changes in the voting rights of China and other emerging markets at the IMF – a small nod to the new economic realities – the US Congress finally approved the reforms .. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-18/congress-approves-imf-changes-giving-emerging-markets-more-sway .
The most controversial geo-economic decisions last year concerned trade. Almost unnoticed after years of desultory talks, the World Trade Organization’s Doha Development Round – initiated to redress imbalances in previous trade agreements that favored developed countries – was given a quiet burial. America’s hypocrisy – advocating free trade but refusing to abandon subsidies on cotton and other agricultural commodities – had posed an insurmountable obstacle to the Doha negotiations. In place of global trade talks, the US and Europe have mounted a divide-and-conquer strategy, based on overlapping trade blocs and agreements.
As a result, what was intended to be a global free trade regime has given way to a discordant managed trade regime. Trade for much of the Pacific and Atlantic regions will be governed by agreements, thousands of pages in length and replete with complex rules of origin that contradict basic principles of efficiency and the free flow of goods.
In particular, the chapter gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international tribunals when they believe government regulations contravene the TPP’s terms (inscribed on more than 6,000 pages). In the past, such tribunals have interpreted the requirement that foreign investors receive “fair and equitable treatment” as grounds for striking down new government regulations – even if they are non-discriminatory and are adopted simply to protect citizens from newly discovered egregious harms.
While the language is complex – inviting costly lawsuits pitting powerful corporations against poorly financed governments – even regulations protecting the planet from greenhouse gas emissions are vulnerable. The only regulations that appear safe are those involving cigarettes (lawsuits filed against Uruguay and Australia for requiring modest labeling about health hazards had drawn too much negative attention). But there remain a host of questions about the possibility of lawsuits in myriad other areas.
Furthermore, a “most favoured nation” provision ensures that corporations can claim the best treatment offered in any of a host country’s treaties. That sets up a race to the bottom – exactly the opposite of what US President Barack Obama promised.
Even the way Obama argued for the new trade agreement showed how out of touch with the emerging global economy his administration is. He repeatedly said that the TPP would determine who – America or China – would write the twenty-first century’s trade rules. The correct approach is to arrive at such rules collectively, with all voices heard, and in a transparent way. Obama has sought to perpetuate business as usual, whereby the rules governing global trade and investment are written by US corporations for US corporations. This should be unacceptable to anyone committed to democratic principles.
Those seeking closer economic integration have a special responsibility to be strong advocates of global governance reforms: if authority over domestic policies is ceded to supranational bodies, then the drafting, implementation, and enforcement of the rules and regulations has to be particularly sensitive to democratic concerns. Unfortunately, that was not always the case in 2015.
In 2016, we should hope for the TPP’s defeat and the beginning of a new era of trade agreements that don’t reward the powerful and punish the weak. The Paris climate agreement may be a harbinger of the spirit and mindset needed to sustain genuine global cooperation.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
